Would it really matter if the next Trek series were on linear TV?

Since most TrekBBS members here are actual fans of the show would it really matter if the next Trek series were on linear TV?
Would you be willing to pay for video-on-demand rental via cable, or season-pass subscription via subscription-based Youtube, subscription-based Hulu, Netflix if it were available instead of watching it on cable or broadcast television?
Yes obviously CBS Television would have to make a deal with many distribution outlets but it is possible to buck the regular TV trend and locking into a TV channel in the USA.

I'm talking about streaming or viewing via download rental, not purchasing to own like Blu-ray/DVD full season or iTunes/Amazon digital file to own (even though iTunes usually has new TV episodes to download to purchase the next day).

Lets put some numbers here. An episode of Enterprise costs about $1.5m. Between distribution costs, and profits for everyone you probably need at least $3m in revenue/episode. By the end, Enterprise was only getting 3m viewers. Apple just set a rental price/episode of $1. Do you think you can get every viewer to agree to pay for what they were watching for free?

I'd be willing to pay $1/episode, and I'm sure a lot of people on this board would too. But until the nature of the TV market changes dramatically, you're just not going to get 3+ million people to agree to pay for each show.

If Hulu premium or Youtube premium or Netflix decides to incorporate an extra subscription fee for a Trek series could it be funded and work as a business model?
Even if not an extra fee could they distribute a Trek series within the USA under a subscription model similar to HBO & Sirius XM [full-time channel Howard 100 extra fee].

I'd pay to see a show i liked (ie, not anything by JJA); but we're talking a company which couldn't see the logic behind straight-to-DVD titles when it was staring it in the face. Why does anyone think they'd get pay-to-view production?

I'd pay to see a show i liked (ie, not anything by JJA); but we're talking a company which couldn't see the logic behind straight-to-DVD titles when it was staring it in the face. Why does anyone think they'd get pay-to-view production?

Click to expand...

Because pay-to-view would be spun as cutting edge future of TV, while DTV is bottom of the barrel content.

Because pay-to-view would be spun as cutting edge future of TV, while DTV is bottom of the barrel content.

Click to expand...

Well said AviTrek.

These days on Amazon.com's Video on Demand service offers a 'season pass'.
some shows are $.94 while others are $2.84 per episode.

Let's compare 2 other 60 minute dramas:
iTunes offers Desperate Housewives for $.99 for a 48-hour rental,
$2.99/episode for HD purchase
or $49.99 for a season pass while another show Glee is $57.99 for a season pass.

If the next Trek series were not broadcast on a linear TV channel in the USA I'm guessing the above would cost the same.
Even if it were syndicated-only I think the price would still be the same cost as above.

=====================
Alternatively in the USA only if CBS Television were to make deals with most of theTop 10 Largest Cable Companies by subscribers
* 1. Comcast Corporation
* 2. Time Warner Cable, Inc.
* 3. Cox Communications, Inc.
* 4. Charter Communications, Inc.
* 5. Cablevision Systems Corporation
* 6. Bright House Networks LLC
* 7. Mediacom Communications Corporation
* 8. Suddenlink Communications
* 9. Insight Communications Company, Inc.
* 10. Cable One, Inc.
DishNetwork
DirectTV
Verizon Fios
AT&Ts U-verse
for on-demand only distribution of the next Trek series
It would then not need a linear TV channel even though CBS owns a number of channels.
All CBS-owned channels could promo the show as video-on-demand only. Sort of like "pay-per-view" but allowing viewers to see the show at any time instead of at a particular time like a pay-per-view boxing match.

Because pay-to-view would be spun as cutting edge future of TV, while DTV is bottom of the barrel content.

Click to expand...

But it won't be, that's the point. When the studio can keep repackaging its back catalogue without spending a cent, why would it bother being inventive in financing new projects? I time-shifted Nemesis last night (it was only the 15th time the film has screened on .au pay TV this year). Can anyone else remember which film proved the franchise was dead when it crushed ST:N in the box office? Haven't seen that one on TV in years....

If the Star Trek producers had had a quarter of the nous that the Stargate team had, we would have had several made-for-dvd titles, a mini-series or two, probably a whole slew of webisodes as well - instead we got years of nothing ending in a poor to middling, borderline offensive reboot. I paid to see that one to see Nimoy (& Pegg). I won't make that mistake again

For the record, i'm a regular supporter of crowd-sourced financing. Can't see the networks experimenting with that, either - though if anyone pitches a DS9-based fan film, let me know

If that's (ahem) true, is it because people who like entertainment other than "Sci Fi" are more willing to pay for it, or simply that there are so many more of them? Neither is much of an argument in favor of sf.

Can anyone else remember which film proved the franchise was dead when it crushed ST:N in the box office?

Click to expand...

iirc, it was Maid in America with Jennifer Lopez

Click to expand...

Almost the correct answer (it was actually called Maid in Manhattan). You win absolutely nothing....

(I'm no Nemesis fan, by the way, though i thought Insurrection was badly underrated. But this explains why Paramount can afford to be so lazy - they're still making good money off what is generally considered a failure. Why be creative?)

If that's (ahem) true, is it because people who like entertainment other than "Sci Fi" are more willing to pay for it, or simply that there are so many more of them? Neither is much of an argument in favor of sf.

Click to expand...

Probably more due to the fact the things nerds like in SF - stories, characterisation, ever romance - aren't what studios want in SF - product placement, viciousness, expansive plastic surgery. I'd pay to see Stephen Fry as a Klingon - they want me to pay to see Will Ferrell as Jim-Luke Packard. It ain't happening

This may (or may not be) good for SF. It's bad for the studios. I have more money to spend than kids & they ain't getting it

Can anyone else remember which film proved the franchise was dead when it crushed ST:N in the box office?

Click to expand...

iirc, it was Maid in America with Jennifer Lopez

Click to expand...

Almost the correct answer (it was actually called Maid in Manhattan). You win absolutely nothing....

(I'm no Nemesis fan, by the way, though i thought Insurrection was badly underrated. But this explains why Paramount can afford to be so lazy - they're still making good money off what is generally considered a failure. Why be creative?)

Click to expand...

That disaster is what motivated their sorry asses to stop being so lazy, when they realized that they were frakking up a valuable franchise so badly that a dumbass Jennifer Lopez vehicle could beat them. Either that, or JJ Abrams just waltzed into their offices one day and offered to solve all their problems because he had a hankering to make a Star Trek flick.

what studios want in SF - product placement, viciousness, expansive plastic surgery. I'd pay to see Stephen Fry as a Klingon - they want me to pay to see Will Ferrell as Jim-Luke Packard. It ain't happening

Click to expand...

Uh - wha? That's got nothing to do with the entertainment industry on this planet.

what studios want in SF - product placement, viciousness, expansive plastic surgery. I'd pay to see Stephen Fry as a Klingon - they want me to pay to see Will Ferrell as Jim-Luke Packard. It ain't happening

Click to expand...

Uh - wha? That's got nothing to do with the entertainment industry on this planet.

Click to expand...

Quite true. Which is why the US film industry is an expensive irrelevancy - it can't tell stories & can't make profits. Also why i'm actually happy there won't be a DS9 film. Rather nothing than a travesty

Fox, is looking to protect DVD sales and exact top dollar for the programs in syndication, according to a person with knowledge of the situation. Exposure on Hulu, Fox fears, would devalue the worth of the shows.

Click to expand...

So I guess even if a new Trek series weren't on a linear TV channel CBS Home Video would feel the same way?